Wednesday, June 25, 2008

No, the title for this post is not about the calamitous stock market crash and the plague of unemployment that marked the misery of the 1930's...but about a column published today by Conservative Radio Talk Show host, Dennis Prager, entitled "Why Are So Many Women Depressed?"

Prager makes some excellent points regarding the role in which feminist dogma plays in creating a culture that produces a record number of women who are reportedly "depressed." His article is spot on in it's assessment, but I do think he misses some other key contributing factors that are indirectly tied to the epidemic of female depression. Nevertheless, I believe his key point ties in directly to much of the criticisms made of feminism and it's nihilistic ideology.

As every wise person and wise culture in history has known, it is impossible to attain any happiness without conquering one's nature. This is, of course, equally true for boys and girls, men and women. However, along with feminism arose a belief in the superiority of female nature. One result of this has been the suppressing of many male instincts -- both negative and positive -- along with little or no suppression of negative female instincts.

Prager's entire article is worth the read, but I would argue that THIS paragraph is the key to every other pathology, deviancy and social corruption we can attribute to feminism.

In just about every area of complaint one can make of the feminists and the feminist movement, it is quite obvious that the key here is accepting personal responsibility for ones thoughts and actions. One of the first areas of responsibility one should learn is to control ones natural urges and instincts. One must "oppress" our base human nature.

Feminism, as we know, seeks freedom from oppression...not just the oppression of "Patriarchy," but the oppression of facing the consequences for giving in to ones base instincts. Is this not the prime motivation for legalized abortion and no-fault divorce? So that a woman can engage in any base behavior she wants without suffering any consequences for it?

Societies and parents always knew that it was imperative to teach boys to control two aspects of their male nature -- their sexual desires and their predilection for violence. So all of us decent men were taught from a young age to touch a woman sexually only with her permission and to channel our physical aggression into sports or into helping to fight evil by joining a police force, or the military, or by being prepared to physically defend innocents. Men who did not learn to control these aspects of male nature not only became bad men, they became unhappy men. Happiness is attainable only when we control our nature and not when our nature controls us.

Does this not speak directly to the problems of the inner city ghettos and the proliferation of single mother households thanks to socialist welfare programs and the divorce industry? The young males raised without Fathers are the very same men that fill our prisons and prey on society; they are the very boys that were denied the primary role models and parental guidance in instilling the lessons of channeling physical aggression into positive outlets.

Societies and parents also always knew that it was imperative to teach girls to control their natures -- in particular their predilection to be ruled by their emotions. Women who allowed their emotions to rule them not only became destructive (to members of their families first and foremost), they became unhappy women.

However, with the advent of contemporary feminism and other social trends that coincided with the rise of feminism -- among them the elevation of compassion over standards, the great emphasis placed on feelings, the rejection of patriarchy and the devaluation of traditional masculine virtues (like subdued emotional expression) -- female nature came to be seen as far less in need of discipline than male nature.

So, while society continued to teach boys to control themselves, it stopped teaching girls to do so. Girls' emotions and feelings were inherently valuable. And denying this was attacked as sexist, if not misogynistic.

Consequently, the women many of these girls grew into lacked the ability to control their natures, to control their emotions, or their moods, and therefore lacked the facility to engage in the self-control necessary for happiness and the avoidance of depression.

It's no coincidence that the cultural zeitgeist that emphasizes emotional state as a paramount consideration of "happiness" has accompanied by the rise of the "no-fault" divorce revolution. When one contemplates it, it's not hard to make a leap in logic that the divorce industry was built upon the encouragement of women to destroy their families because of their emotional state of being.

I believe Prager's next point is also a key component in the epidemic of depression:

Another aspect of feminism that has probably contributed to many women's unhappiness was the rejection of femininity.

He lists several examples of the loss of femininity - like feminine dress, the spread of coarse language and the casual sex norms have all contributed to the stripping of value of the virtues of femininity by our feminist-warped culture.

But the best point Prager makes comes next, for it speaks directly to the prime directive of the feminist ideology - the promotion of disharmony between men and women and the dissolution of the nuclear family.

Women are generally happier when they have a good man in their lives. And by "good man," I mean not only devoted and kind, but masculine as well. Yet the prevailing egalitarian doctrines have conspired not only to undermine femininity in women but masculinity in many men.

Nature did not intend for men and women to be competitors, but symmetrical components complimentary to each other, each bringing a different aspect to the table in creating and molding the next generation of offspring. Thus it is not a leap of logic to point out that Feminism is truly a crime against nature.

And women without men are not, as the old feminist saying went, fish without bicycles.

They are women without men.

When you hear a woman say she doesn't need a man, know that you are listening to the words of a liar, or a delusional person in denial of reality.

Prager concludes:

...many women, untrained in subduing darker aspects of their natures, deprived of the female joy of femininity and increasingly deprived of men (as opposed to boys), are feeling the brunt of these losses.

They call it depression.

Excellent article...but I do believe there is another factor in the rise of depression, and it has to do with SAD - the Standard American Diet. Modern, processed garbage laden with poisonous compounds masquerading as "food" are now ubiquitous. If the human body does not have the proper nutrition, it cannot produce the right mixture of hormones, neurotransmitters and other chemical processes required to have a "normal" functioning human body.

This state of affairs no doubt contributes to an even greater fluctuation in emotional states in a female body that already experiences fluctuations even when eating an optimal diet. Couple that with the cultural conditioning that does not reinforce the need for women to learn to control their natures, and you have the current epidemic of female depression.

No wonder anti-depressants are far and away the best sellers of the pharmaceutical industry.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

On Father's Day, Barak Hussein Obama went to his local Black Church in Chicago Illinois and demonstrated his true, feminist-socialist-liberal-Democrat credentials as he continues his campaign to seize the throne of the United States of Matriarchal America.

Barack Obama celebrated Father's Day by calling on black fathers, who he said are "missing from too many lives and too many homes," to become active in raising their children.

This is how he "Celebrates?"

Imagine Obama standing at the pulpit of his local Church on Mother's Day, and saying "Black Single Mothers with multiple children from multiple partners have played a devastating role in creating the type of environment that breeds the next generation of criminals and poverty! By relying on the Welfare State and choosing irresponsibly in deciding the type of men to procreate with, responsible and supportive providers for Black Families are missing from too many lives and too many homes."

That would lead to quite the Mother's Day "Celebration," wouldn't it?

Black fathers are "missing from too many lives and too many homes," Barack Obama said Sunday.

Absolutely true.

"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it," the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday at a largely black church in his hometown.

Abandoned...or kicked out?

More specifically, kicked out by the single mothers encouraged and subsidized by the socialist welfare State created specifically to reduce the role of Black Fatherhood to nothing more than Sperm Donor.

The statistical facts are indisputable...the "cycle of poverty" is really the "cycle of illegitimacy."

The very party that has just selected Obama to be it's titular head of their policies and platform, is the same Party that legislated the laws to construct the elaborate system that encourages and promotes the continued creation of the single mother homes and illegitimate offspring that have developed into an inter-generational community-wide pathology! The blatant irony of the situation is astonishing!

Obama would never dare to speak the truth...because he needs the support of the feminist-eugenicist-socialist leftist base constituency. He's learned his party's history well...as he did not want to follow in the footsteps of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and President Lyndon Johnson, when they first tried to address the dissolution of the nuclear family in the Black Community, they were quickly brought to heel by the feminists and race huckster "civil rights" leaders.

Convinced that marriage was the main arena of male privilege, feminists projected onto the struggling single mother an image of the “strong black woman” who had always had to work and who was “superior in terms of [her] ability to function healthily in the world,” as Toni Morrison put it. The lucky black single mother could also enjoy more equal relationships with men than her miserably married white sisters.

If black pride made it hard to grapple with the increasingly separate and unequal family, feminism made it impossible. Fretting about single-parent families was now not only racist but also sexist, an effort to deny women their independence, their sexuality, or both. As for the poverty of single mothers, that was simply more proof of patriarchal oppression. In 1978, University of Wisconsin researcher Diana Pearce introduced the useful term “feminization of poverty.” But for her and her many allies, the problem was not the crumbling of the nuclear family; it was the lack of government support for single women and the failure of business to pay women their due.

And this is the EXACT justification for enacting the legislation that has become the entrenched bureaucracy that has promoted and exacerbated the dissolution of the black nuclear family. One would hardly expect Obama to have the cojones to speak the truth given that he is now the head of the very party most responsible for creating those conditions in the first place.

Of course, the man that Obama is today, is largely the result of his own personal upbringing:

Reminding the congregation of his firsthand experience growing up without a father, Obama said he was lucky to have loving grandparents who helped his mother. He got support, second chances and scholarships that helped him get an education. Obama's father left when he was 2.

"A lot of children don't get those chances. There is no margin for error in their lives," said Obama, an Illinois senator.

"I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle -- that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls," added Obama, whose daughters, Sasha and Malia, and his wife, Michelle, watched from the audience.

Too bad, Mr. Obama, you simply CANNOT acknowledge the truth: that under our current system forged by the feminist/race-huckster lobby of the party that you lead, you can only be a good father to your little girls by the will and grace of your wife Michelle.

For if she chose to exercise the legal powers afforded her by the establishment constructed by your own Party over the last half-century, she could consciously and deliberately choose to exclude you from their lives, alienate them against you, and reduce you to nothing more than another statistic of a "Black Father" that "abandoned" his family.

Obama's Father abandoned him. That is unfortunate and tragic. But Mr. Obama should not be projecting his personal experience on to the Black Community as a whole, since the abandonment of Fatherhood began in the black community when the Black Mothers rejected the Patriarchal arrangement and turned to the socialist machinery of the State to become the provider for her family.

Political pundits look to the Father's Day speech as Obama's attempt to "move to the center" and "establish his pro-family credentials."

The issue adds to his family values credentials and lets voters see him delivering a stern message to black voters.

"We can't simply write these problems off to past injustices," Obama said Sunday. "Those injustices are real. There's a reason our families are in disrepair ... but we can't keep using that as an excuse."

Yes, there most certainly is a reason why the Black families are in disrepair, too bad you don't dare acknowledge the truth of that reason!

Obama is not trying to establish his "pro-family credentials;" he is establishing his pro-Feminist credentials and trying to woe back the feminist-fascist base of his party alienated by his intense campaign battles with Ms. Clinton. Why else would he be pandering to the feminist ego by blaming the entire pathology of the Black Community on men...on Father's Day no less?

Friday, June 13, 2008

What a lot of people don't know, is that Saturday, June 14th is Flag Day. Hell, I didn't even know about Flag Day until I read an article by Oliver North today.

Ironically, it's very apropos to the Father's Day present I gave to my Father today! My Grandfather, a WWII combat veteran that served in the Pacific theater as an infantryman BAR Gunner in Guadalcanal and the Phillipines, died this past April at the ripe old age of 90. I asked my father for his memorial service flag, and he gave it to me after the funereal service. I had it encased and an engraved plaque made, and I gave it to my father today as his Father's Day present, since I won't be able to see him on Sunday.

My Father was very moved by it.

Given the current liberal-socialist-feminist zeitgeist that promotes misandry, anti-Father meme's and hatred of one's own country and outright disrespect of the American Flag, I think it's rather fitting to honor both occasions.

Just about everyone in America knows that Sunday, June 15, is Father's Day. The day for dads has been celebrated on the third Sunday of June since 1966, when President Lyndon Johnson decreed it to be so. Those who make and sell power tools and greeting cards have been grateful ever since. Somehow, it just isn't the same for June 14, which is Flag Day and, by no coincidence, the U.S. Army's anniversary.

Father's Day traditionally is memorialized with gifts, cards and calls for dear old dad. Flag Day is all but forgotten. But this year, with the holidays as close as they ever get, there is good reason to celebrate both. As you read this column, tens of thousands of American dads are wearing our country's flag on their shoulders, helmets or flak jackets while serving far from home under some of the most difficult and dangerous conditions imaginable.

Scores of books have been written about the diminished respect accorded to American fathers in our culture. Dads are derided and denigrated in everything from cartoons to commercials. For decades, our entertainment industry and mainstream media have been depicting dads as everything from bumbling buffoons to pathological predators. The dads of "Little House on the Prairie" and "Bonanza" all have passed from the scene. And just like those iconic, heroic dads of yesteryear, waving the flag has gone out of style.

Oh, sure, there was that brief flurry of flag-waving in the aftermath of 9/11. We still can find on the Internet images of soot-covered firemen hanging the Stars and Stripes at the shattered wreckage of the World Trade Center or on the fire-scorched west wall of the Pentagon. And some of us still can recall commuting to work beneath bridges and overpasses on which patriots had draped Old Glory in defiance toward those who brought terror to our shores. But like good fathers, that too has passed. We even have a candidate for president who is acclaimed for refusing to wear an American flag on his lapel.

Of course Obama refuses. He's a tool for the communist socialists that would abrogate American Sovereignty and move us ever closer to the one-world, socialist government all Liberal Democrats favor.

It sometimes seems as though the only place where you can see our flag and a good strong dad together is on -- and in -- a uniform. Rest assured, neither will get the respect or admiration they deserve from Hollywood or the so-called mainstream media.

Hollywood and the so-called mainstream media are devoid of respect and honor. As MarkyMark recently posted, "I remember hearing on the MSM all this hand wringing about the loss of male viewers-OMG, where did they go?! Uh, Darlin', TV's a matriarchal cesspool, so we left-duh!"

Amen Mark.

Throw in the anti-family, anti-patriotism and anti-military bias they inundate their programming with and it's a wonder that any patriotic American male watches anything they have to offer anymore. Where it not for sports, the last bastion of true, competitive male expression, the only "men" that would watch the damn thing would be feminist mangina liberal douchebags.

Anyhow, I just want to add that the conclusion to Ollie's article is a fitting reminder that every American should think this weekend when we are supposed to be honoring both our Fathers and the Flag so many of them have fought, bled and died for.

But in an age when our media disparages fatherhood in general and defames those who wear uniforms in particular, this would be a good weekend to go ahead and wave the flag and thank God for fathers who are willing to serve.

Monday, June 2, 2008

I check up on every single link on my blogroll, every single day that I log on to the internet and actually have the time to do the reading. If I miss a few days (and I never log in on the weekends), I eventually find the time to catch up on the readings I missed previously.

I've noticed more than a few bloggers have taken great pains to define themselves as of late. Some proudly proclaim they are NOT MRA. Others will say they are strictly MGTOW. And still others simply say that they are anti-feminist. Bloggers from whom I respect and read every entry they make all have differing perspectives...here are some examples:

When food and poison compromise, which is the victor? It is the poison. Eating it may be sustaining... for the short term... but your body fills up with these poison toxins. You begin to lose your ambition, your passion, and generally become filled with bitterness.

---

For as much as we mock feminists for being negative, for getting with women to talk bad about men, it is becoming more and more clear that MGTOW is becoming more like the mirror image. Behavior by behavior, a MGTOW male acts very similar to a feminist in lifestyle and habit. You begin to live alone, have meetings with guys to 'talk bad about women' (to ease existential pains), and write bad essays.

I think it is becoming clear that marriage and children is a natural longing in not just women but men as well. Nature did not intend gender avoidance. I believe generally everyone is repelled by the negative pessimistic tone found on MGTOW. However, people return consistently for a dose of the poison to ease the existential pain (caused by the natural longing of wife and children which is found in every culture and time). Once convinced by the rantings that women are more painful than pleasurable, the male goes off semi-satisfied. But, alas, the natural longing creeps up again causing the male to return.

I think by and large, Pook is correct in this assessment of the MGTOW community. And, as I was already married, long before I ever even thought much about feminism, the Matriarchal subversion of society, divorce and all of the other topics for which we are all familiar with, it's not like I could embrace MGTOW as a personal philosophy in dealing with the current state of affairs.

But I understand it. I've seen the system wreak havoc and destroy the lives of men, women and children in my own personal family members, friends and acquaintances. It is because of witnessing these experiences first hand that I understand the MGTOW mentality, for it is a logical reaction to the injustices dealt out by our current system.

This is why I link to MGTOW supportive blogs. I may not believe in MGTOW (still married...ten year anniversary coming up this month), but the MGTOW blogosphere and messageboards do serve a valuable function in the MRA movement - they provide a cautionary tale to previously ignorant men about the reality of life in the Matriarchal-dominated Western Civilization.

Same goes for outright, blatant and often vulgar blogs dedicated to vehement misogyny - such as the Eternal Bachelor. I do not agree with everything Duncan writes. I personally do not choose to resort to the vulgarity in most of my own writings that guys like Duncan do, but, like MGTOW, I understand exactly where this anger and rage is coming from...and that it most certainly is justified. My only reservation is that the angry MRA/MGTOW should heed Pook's warning - subsuming yourself in hate will turn you into the mirror image of the feminists you oppose so vehemently.

There is nothing wrong with single issue advocates. The problem occurs when it starts to override everything else. Take the Elian Gonzalez scenario. MRAs, seeing only the boy returned to his father, begin immediately applauding. They cheer the Janet Reno who sent the troops to invade the house for the boy on one side while condemning Janet Reno for Waco. Never mind that children belong to the State, not fathers, in Cuba.

One of my posts when I first created this blog was based on the same observation Pook made, about having a single issue begin to override everything else. From Avoiding Ideological Monomania:

We need to be aware of the dangers of falling into a monomaniacal mode of thinking, simply because monomania is a primary attribute of modern day feminists...i.e. they see everything and everyone and every action as yet another manifestation of "Patriarchal Oppression." We need to avoid such specious and flawed analytical predilections to avoid becoming like the feminist useful idiots that are quite adept at repeating the propaganda points they've been indoctrinated with, but simply CAN'T engage in a discussion with opposing viewpoints and disagreement.

I also happen to agree with Rex Patriarch on his thoughts on "MRA" and the most public MRA today:

I'm going to revisit this topic again. For those of you who are just starting out as a MGTOW. I didn't say MRA. I'm not an MRA. I'm not marching around trying to get a corrupt government to change it's stripes or spots. Whatever it is. Even if it did change somehow I would still never trust it wouldn't change back again. Screws that. Let it burn to the ground. Die the death it deserves. Girly men like Glenn Sacks can whine all day long about how we need to do this or that. Dudes like him are already caught up in the system that will eventually destroy them. They are on death row. I'm not. You should not be either.

In my opinion, Glenn Sacks does good job of exposing the various issues of feminism and raises awareness on the important points in the public sphere on the injustices of the family courts, parental alienation, peonage via child support and alimony, and exposing and opposing the blatant misandry of the mainstream mass media.

But Glenn is clueless when it comes to politics and the system that has been the primary actor in creating the various facets of misandry and injustice that he works to oppose. He is a self-described liberal Democrat. I simply cannot fathom how the man can work so hard to expose injustice in the system and try to bring about changing it...yet still fail to make the connection between the liberal democrat advocacy and legislation of socialism as the primary means to promote the feminist zeitgeist he is trying to fight at the same time.

In my point of view, I really don't care about labels...I only care about truth. And whatever form that it manifests itself, the truth itself is what is important. But that doesn't mean I am "MRA" in the sense of being a true "activist." I use the term "MRA" as a convenient label to encompass any action, thought, behavior or idea that counters the conventional, mainstream, feminist point of view.

And it is keeping this in mind why I have bothered to make this rather lengthy post as to why I have a blogroll that includes many folks for whom I may not agree in part with.

I'm not looking for ideological purity.

I simply seek to promote any thoughts and ideas that are currently subverting the system of Matriarchy and all of the misery it inflicts on humanity. MRA, MGTOW, vulgar misogyny...they all have their own place in exposing the truth and subverting the system that so many are still ignorant of, having been raised and indoctrinated in the Feminist-Matrix.

The more people become aware of the important issues in the MRA/MGTOW or whatever other label you want to call this...the more we work to subvert the system.